It had less prestige than the the other two championship tours, and lacked Gonzales and Hoad played only part of it. The Roland Garros event was part of the Ampol series, not the Perrier.

Click to expand...

Dan, I agree that the Perrier Trophy was not as important as the world tour (s). But it yet was rather important since the arguably four best claycourters of that time were participating and it was played over three months.

Dan, I still doubt that the Melbourne r.r. of 1959/1960 should count for 1959.

I do know f.i. that the 1978/1979 AO, which ended on January 1st, did count for 1979 not 1978.

Click to expand...

The bonus money for 1959 was distributed immediately after the Kooyong event on January 1, so this was the final event of the Ampol 1959 series.
There was no Ampol tour for 1960, or bonus pool, as Ampol and Qantas withdrew their involvement with the Kramer group after Hoad announced his semi-retirement.

Dan, I agree that the Perrier Trophy was not as important as the world tour (s). But it yet was rather important since the arguably four best claycourters of that time were participating and it was played over three months.

Click to expand...

I think that all of the players spent their best efforts on the world championship tour, which included Roland Garros but not the Perrier.
The list I compiled above was related to major clay TOURNAMENTS, which resulted in a 7 to 2 edge for Hoad against Rosewall.

I think that all of the players spent their best efforts on the world championship tour, which included Roland Garros but not the Perrier.
The list I compiled above was related to major clay TOURNAMENTS, which resulted in a 7 to 2 edge for Hoad against Rosewall.

Click to expand...

Dan, It's just your flaw to underrate Perrier and maybe other events. Spending the best efforts on the world championship tour does NOT mean the players did not try in other events such as Perrier Trophy.

Nowadays the players concentrate to the GS tournaments but they still try to give their best in other events including the end-year masters.

I remember you did value Hoad's 1962 Facis series win as a plus in his career. Facis was similary to Perrier.

You should finally admit that Hoad had a terrible series of defeats in the Perrier series just as Rosewall played a terrible series against Gonzalez in the 1960 World Tour.

Taking away the Perrier series wins from Rosewall (16:1 on clay) is rather mean. I think you don't want to argue in a mean way...

But I maybe can do you a favour in telling you that one of Hoad's three wins in the Perrier series was a 6-0,6-1 victory against Segura...

Dan, It's just your flaw to underrate Perrier and maybe other events. Spending the best efforts on the world championship tour does NOT mean the players did not try in other events such as Perrier Trophy.

Nowadays the players concentrate to the GS tournaments but they still try to give their best in other events including the end-year masters.

I remember you did value Hoad's 1962 Facis series win as a plus in his career. Facis was similary to Perrier.

You should finally admit that Hoad had a terrible series of defeats in the Perrier series just as Rosewall played a terrible series against Gonzalez in the 1960 World Tour.

Taking away the Perrier series wins from Rosewall (16:1 on clay) is rather mean. I think you don't want to argue in a mean way...

But I maybe can do you a favour in telling you that one of Hoad's three wins in the Perrier series was a 6-0,6-1 victory against Segura...

Click to expand...

Good point. By 1962, Hoad's conditioning and play had deteriorated to the point where his victories at Adelaide, the Facis, the 1964 New Zealand tour, while not the premiere events in the world, were the best he could accomplish, although he regained good form in the 14 to 0 tour against Laver in 1963.
The 1960 tour by Rosewall against Gonzales was for the world crown, more important by far than the Perrier. I doubt that Hoad was concerned about the Perrier in 1958, a year when he played in two world championship tours, and won almost $200,000, by far the most in pro tennis.
I have also excluded the 1957 Europe tour, in which Hoad won (perhaps on clay) 6 to 3 against Rosewall.
I have listed the major clay TOURNAMENT results, which were 7 to 2 for Hoad on clay against Rosewall.

kiki, Yes, it's the ultimate showdown. It's Dan vs. Bobby but properly it's Hoad vs. Rosewall who play a five setter. Hoad (but not Dan!) won the fourth set by 6-0! We actually are in the tiebreak of the fifth set, Rosewall leading 5:4...

Good point. By 1962, Hoad's conditioning and play had deteriorated to the point where his victories at Adelaide, the Facis, the 1964 New Zealand tour, while not the premiere events in the world, were the best he could accomplish, although he regained good form in the 14 to 0 tour against Laver in 1963.
The 1960 tour by Rosewall against Gonzales was for the world crown, more important by far than the Perrier. I doubt that Hoad was concerned about the Perrier in 1958, a year when he played in two world championship tours, and won almost $200,000, by far the most in pro tennis.
I have also excluded the 1957 Europe tour, in which Hoad won (perhaps on clay) 6 to 3 against Rosewall.
I have listed the major clay TOURNAMENT results, which were 7 to 2 for Hoad on clay against Rosewall.

Click to expand...

Dan, You insinuate that Hoad did not have a professional attitude in not trying in "lesser" events. Perrier was the preparation for the French Pro. Why should he tank matches?

The world tour ended in April. Perrier started in August. The second "tour" consisted of only five or six tournaments. Please give me better arguments!

How often will you tell me that Hoad was 7:2 in tournaments on clay (I doubt if you have the correct number, see Geneva, 1962)?. I'm sure that Perrier was more important than a few of those tournaments f i. Australian Hardcourts...

Dan, You insinuate that Hoad did not have a professional attitude in not trying in "lesser" events. Perrier was the preparation for the French Pro. Why should he tank matches?

The world tour ended in April. Perrier started in August. The second "tour" consisted of only five or six tournaments. Please give me better arguments!

How often will you tell me that Hoad was 7:2 in tournaments on clay (I doubt if you have the correct number, see Geneva, 1962)?. I'm sure that Perrier was more important than a few of those tournaments f i. Australian Hardcourts...

Click to expand...

Geneva on clay? How do we know?
Hoad's record was below average for the 1958 and 1959 European tour, except for Roland Garros which was part of the Ampol series.
The five tournaments of the 1958 Ampol series were the most prestigious of the year.
Hoad played much more tennis than anyone in 1958 and 1959, putting his best efforts into the big money championships.
As I stated earlier, he won about $10 million in today's dollars from about 400 matches between July 1957 and January 1, 1960, by far the most of the pre-open generation of players. His back would not allow a 100% effort in every event.

kiki, Yes, it's the ultimate showdown. It's Dan vs. Bobby but properly it's Hoad vs. Rosewall who play a five setter. Hoad (but not Dan!) won the fourth set by 6-0! We actually are in the tiebreak of the fifth set, Rosewall leading 5:4...

Assuming that all of the above asterisked matches were played on clay, the final tally head-to-head lifetime on clay was Hoad 15, Rosewall 14, Rosewall winning all of the matches after Hoad's game declined after 1960.

Geneva on clay? How do we know?
Hoad's record was below average for the 1958 and 1959 European tour, except for Roland Garros which was part of the Ampol series.
The five tournaments of the 1958 Ampol series were the most prestigious of the year.
Hoad played much more tennis than anyone in 1958 and 1959, putting his best efforts into the big money championships.
As I stated earlier, he won about $10 million in today's dollars from about 400 matches between July 1957 and January 1, 1960, by far the most of the pre-open generation of players. His back would not allow a 100% effort in every event.

Click to expand...

Dan, I think that Geneva was played on clay because at that time in the summer clay was the dominant surface in Continental Europe.

Assuming that all of the above asterisked matches were played on clay, the final tally head-to-head lifetime on clay was Hoad 15, Rosewall 14, Rosewall winning all of the matches after Hoad's game declined after 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan, I can assure you that Poertschach 1963 was played on clay.

Even if you add the doubtful events, you still don't get the final tally hth lifetime on clay. I have told you already that Rosewall won many matches in 1961/1962 that are undocumented. Source is the Rowley bio of Rosewall.

Dan, I think that Geneva was played on clay because at that time in the summer clay was the dominant surface in Continental Europe.

Click to expand...

But Geneva had indoor venues, and they would cost less for the pros to rent than an outdoor clay stadium.
We cannot assume very much; for example, in 1960 the second Melbourne event was actually indoor on carpet, despite the prevalence of grass in Australia.
I have listed Geneva above with an asterisk, but the final tally still shows Hoad ahead of Rosewall lifetime on clay.

Even if you add the doubtful events, you still don't get the final tally hth lifetime on clay. I have told you already that Rosewall won many matches in 1961/1962 that are undocumented. Source is the Rowley bio of Rosewall.

Click to expand...

Poertschach was definitely on clay

i was wondering, since kiki started that ´greatest rivalry´theme.
Dan, Bobby, are the two of you active tennis players?

The final tally Hoad 16 wins, Rosewall 17 wins, Rosewall winning the majority of the matches after Hoad's decline as a player after 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan, Thanks for the grass list.

You forgot two Rosewall wins in the 1965 Australian series.

I would not say that Hoad really declined after 1960. Remember his wins against Laver and his great 1966 Wembley match against Rosewall. I just believe that Rosewall improved after 1959 which you deny.

Even if you add the doubtful events, you still don't get the final tally hth lifetime on clay. I have told you already that Rosewall won many matches in 1961/1962 that are undocumented. Source is the Rowley bio of Rosewall.

Click to expand...

I read the Rowley, but do not recall the matches you refer to.
Could you list them?
We have to do better than a vague reference to undocumented and unlisted events. You could play that both ways.
If these unmentionable matches were in Australia, they were likely on grass.

Did Lew Hoad go into the service and get injured? I heard something like that happened that shortened his tennis career. Plus he was interested in other things besides tennis. People forgot nobody was getting rich the way the players are today.

But Geneva had indoor venues, and they would cost less for the pros to rent than an outdoor clay stadium.
We cannot assume very much; for example, in 1960 the second Melbourne event was actually indoor on carpet, despite the prevalence of grass in Australia.
I have listed Geneva above with an asterisk, but the final tally still shows Hoad ahead of Rosewall lifetime on clay.

Did Lew Hoad go into the service and get injured? I heard something like that happened that shortened his tennis career. Plus he was interested in other things besides tennis. People forgot nobody was getting rich the way the players are today.

Click to expand...

Hoad got rich in just 2 1/2 years, about ten million in today's dollars.
Hoad was injured by an exercise he invented while in military service in early 1954 (age 19).
He did pushups with round, fifty-pound weights on his back, and continued the exercise after he left the service.
This caused two ruptured and herniated discs, and the doctor who operated on him in 1978 said that it was a miracle that he had been able to play tennis at all.

I read the Rowley, but do not recall the matches you refer to.
Could you list them?
We have to do better than a vague reference to undocumented and unlisted events. You could play that both ways.
If these unmentionable matches were in Australia, they were likely on grass.

Click to expand...

Dan, In the Rowley book on page 86, Rosewall says:" I'd say that I have beaten Lew twenty of twenty-five times over the past three years". That statement was made in the summer of 1963.

I used to play only five to ten matches per anno. Since five years I'm retired. Before that I used to lose against a 85 years old man...

Click to expand...

I stopped playing regular tennis in 1970, when I failed to make my university tennis team (scared off by a guy who later beat Rosewall in an exhibition match in Toronto in 1973).
In 1981, I played some hour-long rallies against a University of Toronto intercollegiate player, who told me that my groundstrokes were as good as Borg's. Too bad I could never develop a serve. Have not played since.

Hoad got rich in just 2 1/2 years, about ten million in today's dollars.
Hoad was injured by an exercise he invented while in military service in early 1954 (age 19).
He did pushups with round, fifty-pound weights on his back, and continued the exercise after he left the service.
This caused two ruptured and herniated discs, and the doctor who operated on him in 1978 said that it was a miracle that he had been able to play tennis at all.

I stopped playing regular tennis in 1970, when I failed to make my university tennis team (scared off by a guy who later beat Rosewall in an exhibition match in Toronto in 1973).
In 1981, I played some hour-long rallies against a University of Toronto intercollegiate player, who told me that my groundstrokes were as good as Borg's. Too bad I could never develop a serve. Have not played since.

Click to expand...

thanks to both of you for answering. i´m well aware that you are in the middle of a debate
i find it curious, that you are so passionate about the history of our sport, when you don´t play it yourself.
while on the other end of the spectrum i meet people in my club who don´t have the slightest idea about past champions or events

I stopped playing regular tennis in 1970, when I failed to make my university tennis team (scared off by a guy who later beat Rosewall in an exhibition match in Toronto in 1973).
In 1981, I played some hour-long rallies against a University of Toronto intercollegiate player, who told me that my groundstrokes were as good as Borg's. Too bad I could never develop a serve. Have not played since.

Click to expand...

Dan, There is almost no Dan Lobb post where you don't belittle Rosewall...

Dan, In the Rowley book on page 86, Rosewall says:" I'd say that I have beaten Lew twenty of twenty-five times over the past three years". That statement was made in the summer of 1963.

Click to expand...

That is the definition of an offhand, vague remark.
There is nothing there about clay or grass, but as you see in my lists, Rosewall won nearly all the clay and grass matches after 1960.
How does that contradict what I have written above?

I would not say that Hoad really declined after 1960. Remember his wins against Laver and his great 1966 Wembley match against Rosewall. I just believe that Rosewall improved after 1959 which you deny.

Click to expand...

Yes, because Rosewall was great between 1956 and 1960, and the only guys ahead of him were Gonzales and Hoad at their peak, whom I rate as the two greatest ever. They both declined after 1960, allowing Rosewall to dominate for three years.
Biologically, peak years are about 21 to 25, so I think Rosewall peaked 1957 to 1960.

Yes, because Rosewall was great between 1956 and 1960, and the only guys ahead of him were Gonzales and Hoad at their peak, whom I rate as the two greatest ever. They both declined after 1960, allowing Rosewall to dominate for three years.
Biologically, peak years are about 21 to 25, so I think Rosewall peaked 1957 to 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan,

To be honest I think Rosewall's peak years were around 1959 to 1964 or 1965. It's not be the physically peak but the mental peak and skill peak too.

I'm curious about your opinion on who is at least close to Hoad in tennis history if they are "on" their game. There are obviously many choices here so I won't restrict you to just one choice.

That is the definition of an offhand, vague remark.
There is nothing there about clay or grass, but as you see in my lists, Rosewall won nearly all the clay and grass matches after 1960.
How does that contradict what I have written above?

Click to expand...

Dan, Ken Rosewall usually gives rather exact remarks. Therefore I trust him regarding the about 20:5 balance. It's not offhand!

I strongly contradict you when you are writing about a "lifetime" balance on clay of H&R. You at least should add:"As far as we can say now". It's just probable that some of the about 20 Rosewall winning matches after 1960 were played on clay. Please argue in a serious way. You often seem very offhand...

Dan, I will never understand why a man who uses to belittle K.R. is able to rank him as high as No.5. As earlier said you should give Rosewall a place between 11 and 20 or so (Rosewall a "second Emerson"). I remember your stupid claim that Rosewall won against Hoad at Wembley because he handled the smoke in the Empire Pool better than Hoad...

I also doubt that a nobody was able to beat Muscles in 1973 in Japan when Rosewall was No.6 in the world and able to beat Newcombe in the Japan final by 6-1,6-4.

Yes, because Rosewall was great between 1956 and 1960, and the only guys ahead of him were Gonzales and Hoad at their peak, whom I rate as the two greatest ever. They both declined after 1960, allowing Rosewall to dominate for three years.
Biologically, peak years are about 21 to 25, so I think Rosewall peaked 1957 to 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan, Rosewall needed a few years at the pros to adapt his game to Gonzalez and others.

The peak years of most players at that time was between 26 and 29. See Gonzalez, Laver and others.

To be honest I think Rosewall's peak years were around 1959 to 1964 or 1965. It's not be the physically peak but the mental peak and skill peak too.

I'm curious about your opinion on who is at least close to Hoad in tennis history if they are "on" their game. There are obviously many choices here so I won't restrict you to just one choice.

Click to expand...

pc1, Let me answer too to your question for Dan. I think that a peak Laver and a peak Gonzalez were at least as strong as Hoad. Hoad almost never was able to beat Rosewall as clearly as Laver could do several times in 1966 and 1968 (although we must say that Rosewall was a bit past his prime then). I only know of a 8:1 Hoad win at Wembley as a very clear victory of Hoad over Rosewall. Mostly their encounters were tough matches.

Regarding Rosewall's peak: It was Bobby Riggs after the 1963 US Pro final who claimed that Rosewall would have beaten any great of history. I doubt if Bobby would have said the same in the late 1950s.

It's just an "idee fixe" of Dan Lobb to put Rosewall's peak years in the 1950s in order to belittle that GOAT candidate....

Dan argues that Rosewall in his peak was dominated by Gonzalez and Hoad in the end-1950s (even though he was not dominated by Hoad then) and that he only ruled pro tennis in the 1960s because Gonzalez and Hoad had declined which only could be true regarding Pancho. Hoad never dominated Rosewall in any period and even Pancho was 4:8 against Muscles in 1959.

Yes, because Rosewall was great between 1956 and 1960, and the only guys ahead of him were Gonzales and Hoad at their peak, whom I rate as the two greatest ever. They both declined after 1960, allowing Rosewall to dominate for three years.
Biologically, peak years are about 21 to 25, so I think Rosewall peaked 1957 to 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan, Dan!

You contradict yourself: You write that the peak years are about 21 to 25 but you also write that Rosewall peaked 1957 to 1960. Rosewall was 21 in 1955.

Borg and McEnroe were the first great players who peaked at 22. All older greats reached their prime a few years of age later.

To be honest I think Rosewall's peak years were around 1959 to 1964 or 1965. It's not be the physically peak but the mental peak and skill peak too.

I'm curious about your opinion on who is at least close to Hoad in tennis history if they are "on" their game. There are obviously many choices here so I won't restrict you to just one choice.

Click to expand...

I like Rosewall's choice of the top four, and I think that he was picking according to peak play; Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer, in that order.
I am less impressed with Tilden, Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg all of whom played consistently well at a high level, but did not have the "extra gear" of the top four. Sedgman could reach an extra level on occasions.
I think that Vines had great equipment, but a more limited range of options than Hoad or Laver, or even Gonzales. Gonzales, like Hoad, was a great natural talent who could improvise with great range. This is important on the "big" points.

Dan, Ken Rosewall usually gives rather exact remarks. Therefore I trust him regarding the about 20:5 balance. It's not offhand!

I strongly contradict you when you are writing about a "lifetime" balance on clay of H&R. You at least should add:"As far as we can say now". It's just probable that some of the about 20 Rosewall winning matches after 1960 were played on clay. Please argue in a serious way. You often seem very offhand...

Click to expand...

The point is, Bobby, he doesn't say ANYTHING about clay or grass, so we don't know how his statement would affect the lists I drew up.
Yes, I could add "as far as we know", but that is true of ANY such lifetime hth list.
I do not see where those 20 matches would be on clay.

The point is, Bobby, he doesn't say ANYTHING about clay or grass, so we don't know how his statement would affect the lists I drew up.
Yes, I could add "as far as we know", but that is true of ANY such lifetime hth list.
I do not see where those 20 matches would be on clay.

Click to expand...

Dan, Maybe your powers of imagination are a little bit weak. Of course some of those 20 matches could be on clay.